Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 463 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-670

Opinion Delivered October 1, 2025 JOHN NAYLOR APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16LCR-23-40] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge John Naylor appeals from a Craighead County Circuit Court sentencing order revoking his probation and sentencing him to ten years’ suspended imposition of sentence.1 On appeal, Naylor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation. We affirm.

On November 3, 2023, Naylor pleaded guilty to sex offender failure or refusal to provide information (a Class C felony) and received three years’ probation. The conditions of his probation required, in part, that he “not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment” and “not use, sell, distribute, or possess any controlled substance.”

This is a companion case to two other cases, Nos. 16LCR-23-21 and 16LCR-23-26, in which Naylor had also been placed on probation. Naylor has filed separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in all three. See also Naylor v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 449; Naylor v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 448.

On April 4, 2024, the State filed a single petition to revoke in this case and the two other companion cases. The petition alleged that Naylor had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to “live a law-abiding life, to be of good behavior, and not violate any state, federal, or municipal laws” and more specifically alleged that “[o]n or about 2/26/24 Naylor was arrested for the felony offenses of Possession of a Controlled Substance Methamphetamine . . . and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.”

The circuit court held a hearing on the State’s revocation petition on June 24, 2024.

This hearing was combined with the revocation hearings in the companion cases. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing has been detailed in our separate opinion in the companion case of Naylor v. State, 2025 Ark. App. ___. Because the facts, issues on appeal, and arguments presented here are identical to those presented in the companion case, which is also handed down today, it is unnecessary to restate them herein. On the basis of the reasoning set forth in the companion case, we affirm Naylor’s revocation.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.